| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"alvintchase" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2004 02:32:23 PM |
| Object: |
Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
.
|
|
| User: "old coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 12:32:46 AM |
|
|
(alvintchase) wrote in
news:a78957eb.0410231132.6a4ce5d6@posting.google.com:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I really hope that whoever wins, does so legitimately, even if it comes
down to a House vote, not a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.
--
-=oc=-
"Don't punish yourself for imagined sins." - Charles
"you do not need to bargain your well being" - %
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 01:03:11 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2004 05:32:46 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com> wrote:
relayer211@hotmail.com (alvintchase) wrote in
news:a78957eb.0410231132.6a4ce5d6@posting.google.com:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I really hope that whoever wins, does so legitimately, even if it comes
down to a House vote, not a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.
That was no less legitimate than anything else. The Federal SC *had* to
put an end to the recounts at some point, or the mess would have been made
worse. And as it worked out, they were absolutely right. Not just because
by all counts it was determined that Bush did win Florida by over 500
votes, but because a single state's incompetence can't be allowed to
hamstring a national election.
I'm astonished when people speak of this because it assumes that somehow
the Florida State SC was somehow more enlightened than the Federal SC. Yet
if the Florida SC had been allowed to have the last word, we would have had
four years of Republicans whining that a state SC had installed a
President. And rightly so as it turns out. We can laugh at all the
Democrat whining as being insane, because we know for a fact that Bush won.
But of course that is just how it worked out. When you're talking 500
votes, it could easily have gone the other way and been a disaster.
I wouldn't even like a house vote. That will produce just as much bitching
as the SC ordeal.
What we need is another Ronald Reagan who can get a 489/49 win in electoral
votes and follow it up with a 525/13 win for a second term. It doesn't
even matter what some people think of Reagan's Presidency now. The point
is that there was absolutely no denying that he was the man the people
wanted.
--
"'Stupid' means one thing: threatening to the interests of the Democratic
Party. The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and
hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be."
- Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "old coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 02:27:54 AM |
|
|
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in
news:lm11o096cfig2c7tgkfoo8ftppvof0h0kq@4ax.com:
On 28 Oct 2004 05:32:46 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com>
wrote:
relayer211@hotmail.com (alvintchase) wrote in
news:a78957eb.0410231132.6a4ce5d6@posting.google.com:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I really hope that whoever wins, does so legitimately, even if it
comes down to a House vote, not a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.
That was no less legitimate than anything else. The Federal SC *had*
to put an end to the recounts at some point, or the mess would have
been made worse. And as it worked out, they were absolutely right.
Not just because by all counts it was determined that Bush did win
Florida by over 500 votes, but because a single state's incompetence
can't be allowed to hamstring a national election.
I'm astonished when people speak of this because it assumes that
somehow the Florida State SC was somehow more enlightened than the
Federal SC. Yet if the Florida SC had been allowed to have the last
word, we would have had four years of Republicans whining that a state
SC had installed a President. And rightly so as it turns out. We can
laugh at all the Democrat whining as being insane, because we know for
a fact that Bush won.
But of course that is just how it worked out. When you're talking 500
votes, it could easily have gone the other way and been a disaster.
I wouldn't even like a house vote. That will produce just as much
bitching as the SC ordeal.
But at least it's provided for in the Constitution. I can't ever remember
a time other than 2000 when a split court installed a president. Right or
wrong, the whole thing stinks and it looks like we're heading down the same
path again. It's time to get rid of the Electoral College and force truly
national debates/campaigns that a popular vote would do. How in the hell
can we export democracy to the Middle East if we can't even elect a
president ourselves?
What we need is another Ronald Reagan who can get a 489/49 win in
electoral votes and follow it up with a 525/13 win for a second term.
It doesn't even matter what some people think of Reagan's Presidency
now. The point is that there was absolutely no denying that he was
the man the people wanted.
Absolutely correct. Or even Clinton's margins of victories.
--
"'Stupid' means one thing: threatening to the interests of the
Democratic Party. The more Conservative the Republican, the more
vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be."
- Ann Coulter
--
-=oc=-
"Don't punish yourself for imagined sins." - Charles
"you do not need to bargain your well being" - %
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 04:16:05 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2004 07:27:54 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com> wrote:
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in
news:lm11o096cfig2c7tgkfoo8ftppvof0h0kq@4ax.com:
But of course that is just how it worked out. When you're talking 500
votes, it could easily have gone the other way and been a disaster.
I wouldn't even like a house vote. That will produce just as much
bitching as the SC ordeal.
But at least it's provided for in the Constitution. I can't ever remember
a time other than 2000 when a split court installed a president. Right or
wrong, the whole thing stinks and it looks like we're heading down the same
path again. It's time to get rid of the Electoral College and force truly
national debates/campaigns that a popular vote would do. How in the hell
can we export democracy to the Middle East if we can't even elect a
president ourselves?
I don't buy that "installing" idea. They simply said "Okay enough is
enough, give us a count!"
I still think the electoral college serves a good purpose. It can prevent
high population density urban area from overwhelming low density rural
areas. It works so well that some European's have suggested the same thing
for the EU - for the purpose of preventing Germany and France from being
the de facto dictators of the EU.
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
--
JEALOUS, adj. Unduly concerned about the preservation of that which can
be lost only if not worth keeping.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "old coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 09:22:20 AM |
|
|
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in
news:fqd1o05nuaffplpb9haa6d0j599uiupf74@4ax.com:
On 28 Oct 2004 07:27:54 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com>
wrote:
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in
news:lm11o096cfig2c7tgkfoo8ftppvof0h0kq@4ax.com:
But of course that is just how it worked out. When you're talking
500 votes, it could easily have gone the other way and been a
disaster. I wouldn't even like a house vote. That will produce just
as much bitching as the SC ordeal.
But at least it's provided for in the Constitution. I can't ever
remember a time other than 2000 when a split court installed a
president. Right or wrong, the whole thing stinks and it looks like
we're heading down the same path again. It's time to get rid of the
Electoral College and force truly national debates/campaigns that a
popular vote would do. How in the hell can we export democracy to the
Middle East if we can't even elect a president ourselves?
I don't buy that "installing" idea. They simply said "Okay enough is
enough, give us a count!"
Call it what you will... a matter of semantics I suppose.
I still think the electoral college serves a good purpose. It can
prevent high population density urban area from overwhelming low
density rural areas. It works so well that some European's have
suggested the same thing for the EU - for the purpose of preventing
Germany and France from being the de facto dictators of the EU.
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the
state level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or
nothing casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional
voting.
Colorado has that initiative on the ballot for Tuesday's election. If it
passes it's sure to go to court though. As far as I can remember, there
are two states that currently allocate their electoral votes based on
proportional voting, but I'd be hard pressed to tell you which ones.
--
JEALOUS, adj. Unduly concerned about the preservation of that which
can be lost only if not worth keeping.
- Ambrose Bierce
--
_
-=oc=-
"you do not need to bargain your well being" - %
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 03:57:23 PM |
|
|
old coyote wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the
state level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or
nothing casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional
voting.
Colorado has that initiative on the ballot for Tuesday's election. If it
passes it's sure to go to court though. As far as I can remember, there
are two states that currently allocate their electoral votes based on
proportional voting, but I'd be hard pressed to tell you which ones.
Maine and Nebraska.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 04:08:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
29 Oct 2004 02:23:36 PM |
|
|
In message <8tn2o0hmbu31ouarrbq5eo5jjvgt42liq7@4ax.com>, wombn
<wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> writes
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
If it was, the Weimar Republic must have been an early user of PR.
Hitler's party had a lot of support, and became the largest in the
Reichstag, whether by PR or by winning constituency votes I don't know.
He was asked by the President to form a government, and consolidated
power by destroying opponents. He isn't the only democratically elected
political leader to do that. Once he had a firm grip on power, he
abandoned the constitution that put him there, and which would have made
him give up power.
Thomas will be along in a while to correct me. :)
They use PR in Italy, which isn't a good advert for it - they've had
more governments than a few since the Second World War when the new
constitution was agreed. It's possible there for a party to get
relatively few votes and get elected - concentrate them in one region -
while another can get a lot more votes, evenly spread across the
country, and get nothing from it. It happened at the last election.
There are a lot of versions of PR. When we go for it nationally (we use
it in Northern Ireland) I hope we don't pick the Italian system.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 10:52:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:08:07 GMT, wombn <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
I don't recall what Germany's political system was like at the time. But I
don't see how proportional voting would have hurt. Bill Clinton was
elected with the same percentage of the popular vote that Adolph Hitler
received.
Pluralities can have nasty results.
--
RATIONAL, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation,
experience and reflection.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 11:30:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:52:35 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
I don't recall what Germany's political system was like at the time. But I
don't see how proportional voting would have hurt. Bill Clinton was
elected with the same percentage of the popular vote that Adolph Hitler
received.
yikes.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 05:18:51 PM |
|
|
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
So what if it was? Does that mean it's intrinsically evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 06:04:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:18:51 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@catlover.com> wrote:
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
So what if it was? Does that mean it's intrinsically evil?
oh no. Just more risk that I'm comfortable taking.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 09:32:16 PM |
|
|
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:18:51 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@catlover.com> wrote:
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
So what if it was? Does that mean it's intrinsically evil?
oh no. Just more risk that I'm comfortable taking.
Spain, Denmark, South Africa, Romania, Columia, Brazil, Cyprus Costa
Rica, Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Italy, Hungary, Uruguay, Luxembourg,
Burkina Faso, Venezuela, Norway, Honduras, Turkey, Madagascar, Iceland,
Finland, Liberia, Eire, Latvia, Paraguay, Austria, New Zealand,
Portugal, Mozambique, Poland, Peru, El Salvador, Sweden, Belgium,
Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Suriname are some of the countries
which use that system of voting. The fact that Germany's Weimar Republic
employed it and that Hitler exploited it doesn't discredit it; that only
signifies that no matter how good or fair a system is, someone will find
a way to abuse it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 09:50:11 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:18:51 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@catlover.com> wrote:
wombn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
So what if it was? Does that mean it's intrinsically evil?
oh no. Just more risk that I'm comfortable taking.
Spain, Denmark, South Africa, Romania, Columia, Brazil, Cyprus Costa
Rica, Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Italy, Hungary, Uruguay, Luxembourg,
Burkina Faso, Venezuela, Norway, Honduras, Turkey, Madagascar, Iceland,
Finland, Liberia, Eire, Latvia, Paraguay, Austria, New Zealand,
Portugal, Mozambique, Poland, Peru, El Salvador, Sweden, Belgium,
Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Suriname are some of the countries
which use that system of voting. The fact that Germany's Weimar Republic
employed it and that Hitler exploited it doesn't discredit it; that only
signifies that no matter how good or fair a system is, someone will find
a way to abuse it.
As with everything in life, there are pros and cons to any system. No
system is perfect. Clearly the parlimentary system used in Europe has
produced some outstanding model nations. At the same time, the US has
done pretty well too, over the last 215 years. One nasty squabble in
the 1860's, but we recovered and thrived.
I can come up with a big list of problems in many of the countries you
list. I think wombn's point is that it's more of a risk with a
parlimentary system, not that one system is inherently and always
superior to another. We chose one, they chose another. Mathematically,
this seems to be the case.
The US is a 2-party system due to the winner-take-all model. That makes
it mandatory that the 2 parties appeal to as broad a band as possible,
which means they are going to play to the middle. Ralph Nader will
NEVER be elected president, neither will Ross Perot, Buchanan, or the
others. They can get 10% of the vote, not an insignificant number
people, but it wouldn't matter. I think more ideologically pure parties
like the libertarians could make huge inroads in the US if we went to a
proportional system. Personally, I'd be MUCH more likely to vote for
libertarians if I knew my vote wasn't going to be wasted on "voting my
conscience." Flip side of that is that more ideologically-based groups
get elected. Good, or bad? I think there's a bit of both to either
system you choose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
31 Oct 2004 04:59:50 PM |
|
|
In message <4181AFCA.70007@comcast.net>, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
writes
As with everything in life, there are pros and cons to any system. No
system is perfect. Clearly the parlimentary system used in Europe has
produced some outstanding model nations. At the same time, the US has
done pretty well too, over the last 215 years. One nasty squabble in
the 1860's, but we recovered and thrived.
What makes you think that all the fifty or so European countries have
one, parliamentary, system of government? They are all at least nominal
democracies, but you won't find two systems the same among the lot of
them. And why do you apparently exclude the US from having a
parliamentary system?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
31 Oct 2004 06:03:21 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <4181AFCA.70007@comcast.net>, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
writes
As with everything in life, there are pros and cons to any system. No
system is perfect. Clearly the parlimentary system used in Europe has
produced some outstanding model nations. At the same time, the US has
done pretty well too, over the last 215 years. One nasty squabble in
the 1860's, but we recovered and thrived.
What makes you think that all the fifty or so European countries have
one, parliamentary, system of government? They are all at least nominal
democracies, but you won't find two systems the same among the lot of
them. And why do you apparently exclude the US from having a
parliamentary system?
I can wiggle my ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
31 Oct 2004 07:07:17 PM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41857D49.8020906@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <4181AFCA.70007@comcast.net>, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
writes
As with everything in life, there are pros and cons to any system. No
system is perfect. Clearly the parlimentary system used in Europe has
produced some outstanding model nations. At the same time, the US has
done pretty well too, over the last 215 years. One nasty squabble in
the 1860's, but we recovered and thrived.
What makes you think that all the fifty or so European countries have
one, parliamentary, system of government? They are all at least nominal
democracies, but you won't find two systems the same among the lot of
them. And why do you apparently exclude the US from having a
parliamentary system?
I can wiggle my ears.
i can play happy birthday on a 5 string banjo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
01 Nov 2004 12:34:52 AM |
|
|
In message <10oavj5p84clt18@corp.supernews.com>, %
<surfs@uniserve.?.invalid> writes
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41857D49.8020906@comcast.net...
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <4181AFCA.70007@comcast.net>, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
writes
As with everything in life, there are pros and cons to any system. No
system is perfect. Clearly the parlimentary system used in Europe has
produced some outstanding model nations. At the same time, the US has
done pretty well too, over the last 215 years. One nasty squabble in
the 1860's, but we recovered and thrived.
What makes you think that all the fifty or so European countries have
one, parliamentary, system of government? They are all at least nominal
democracies, but you won't find two systems the same among the lot of
them. And why do you apparently exclude the US from having a
parliamentary system?
I can wiggle my ears.
i can play happy birthday on a 5 string banjo
I can stroke my Nelly.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
31 Oct 2004 06:48:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:03:21 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
I can wiggle my ears.
Me too. In fact, I realized that I'd learned how to while touring the
UN building way back in 1979. As we walked through the building, I
realized that my glasses kept moving. Took me a little while to
realize that it was my *ears* that were doing that.
Now I can wiggle my ears on command.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
30 Oct 2004 03:12:19 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"wombn" <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:16:05 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Of course the electoral college can be changed in some ways at the state
level, and some states are considering it. Instead of an all or nothing
casting of electoral votes, some want to go with proportional voting.
isn't that what allowed Hitler to gain his seat?
No. I don't know where you get that idea.
Hitler won both parliament elections in 1932 by a fair margin.
The only reason Hitler did not become German
chancellor already in 1932 was that back then
the chancellor was appointed by the president,
rather than elected by the Reichstag. Hindenburg appointed
von Papen, then Schleicher, and only when both could
not get a stable government together, he appointed Hitler.
If the 1932 elections would have followed a US-style
"most votes get the seat" modell, rather than a proportional
vote, the NSDAP, being by far the strongest party,
would have won most of the
seats, rather than just about one third of the seats.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
30 Oct 2004 03:13:37 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2004 07:27:54 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com> wrote:
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in
news:lm11o096cfig2c7tgkfoo8ftppvof0h0kq@4ax.com:
But of course that is just how it worked out. When you're talking 500
votes, it could easily have gone the other way and been a disaster.
I wouldn't even like a house vote. That will produce just as much
bitching as the SC ordeal.
But at least it's provided for in the Constitution. I can't ever remember
a time other than 2000 when a split court installed a president. Right or
wrong, the whole thing stinks and it looks like we're heading down the same
path again. It's time to get rid of the Electoral College and force truly
national debates/campaigns that a popular vote would do. How in the hell
can we export democracy to the Middle East if we can't even elect a
president ourselves?
I don't buy that "installing" idea. They simply said "Okay enough is
enough, give us a count!"
It was pretty evident who would win that immediate count because it
forced that all recounts were aborted, and thus could not be used.
But thats not the real shame, the real shame is that
Florida is unable to count the votes, and that they
need weeks to do a recount. Heck, over here, there
is a mandatory complete recount on all votes,
and its usually finished the day after the election,
even on those complex elections where everybody has
60 votes which can be distributed among 600
candidates.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
01 Nov 2004 06:56:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:13:37 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2004 07:27:54 GMT, old coyote <the_oldcoyote@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't buy that "installing" idea. They simply said "Okay enough is
enough, give us a count!"
It was pretty evident who would win that immediate count because it
forced that all recounts were aborted, and thus could not be used.
You mean repeated recounts...
But thats not the real shame, the real shame is that
Florida is unable to count the votes, and that they
need weeks to do a recount. Heck, over here, there
is a mandatory complete recount on all votes,
and its usually finished the day after the election,
even on those complex elections where everybody has
60 votes which can be distributed among 600
candidates.
I don't think states should be allowed to all have their own systems when
it comes to national elections. There should be a uniform national ballot.
But then there is a problem with candidate who don't get on the ballot in
every state.
--
As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what
they do.
- Andrew Carnegie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 12:46:34 AM |
|
|
my right arm is killing me ,
i got an indian tattooed on it yesterday ,
and now it won't work
.
|
|
|
| User: "old coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 01:14:51 AM |
|
|
"%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote in news:10o11vg93flcp52@corp.supernews.com:
my right arm is killing me ,
i got an indian tattooed on it yesterday ,
and now it won't work
Try letting it rest and if that doesn't work, blame the government.
They'll feel guilty and throw cash at you.
--
-=oc=-
"Don't punish yourself for imagined sins." - Charles
"you do not need to bargain your well being" - %
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 12:58:45 AM |
|
|
"%" wrote:
my right arm is killing me ,
i got an indian tattooed on it yesterday ,
and now it won't work
An Indian, you say...which caste?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
28 Oct 2004 01:37:43 AM |
|
|
In message <41808A95.4092C1B1@catlover.com>, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@catlover.com> writes
"%" wrote:
my right arm is killing me ,
i got an indian tattooed on it yesterday ,
and now it won't work
An Indian, you say...which caste?
Kshatriya, of course, the butch ones, the warrior caste.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
29 Oct 2004 12:12:58 AM |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2004 12:32:23 -0700, (alvintchase)
wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I'm not sure what would be nice about that. What I think would be
nice is if we had a candidate that so many people thought well of that
he/she would win by a large margin.
Somewhere between slim chance and fat chance of that happening.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
29 Oct 2004 03:34:35 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:12:58 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
On 23 Oct 2004 12:32:23 -0700, (alvintchase)
wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I'm not sure what would be nice about that. What I think would be
nice is if we had a candidate that so many people thought well of that
he/she would win by a large margin.
Somewhere between slim chance and fat chance of that happening.
What's really bizarre is that there are 33 different combinations that
could result in a 269/269 tie in electoral votes.
If that happens, the house then votes for President, and the senate votes
for the VP.
The house has the margin to elect Bush without question. But the senate is
nearly evenly divided, with only a single vote margin on the Democrat side.
However the senate rules are such that a senator cannot vote for himself,
so John Edwards would abstain, resulting a tie. Ties in the senate are
broken by the VP, who *can* vote for himself. So ***** Cheney could cast
the deciding vote to reelect himself as VP.
--
ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to
ourselves.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
29 Oct 2004 05:03:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:34:35 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:12:58 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
On 23 Oct 2004 12:32:23 -0700, (alvintchase)
wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I'm not sure what would be nice about that. What I think would be
nice is if we had a candidate that so many people thought well of that
he/she would win by a large margin.
Somewhere between slim chance and fat chance of that happening.
What's really bizarre is that there are 33 different combinations that
could result in a 269/269 tie in electoral votes.
If that happens, the house then votes for President, and the senate votes
for the VP.
The house has the margin to elect Bush without question. But the senate is
nearly evenly divided, with only a single vote margin on the Democrat side.
However the senate rules are such that a senator cannot vote for himself,
so John Edwards would abstain, resulting a tie. Ties in the senate are
broken by the VP, who *can* vote for himself. So ***** Cheney could cast
the deciding vote to reelect himself as VP.
*head spins*
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Election Day(Spolier:politics) |
29 Oct 2004 03:37:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:34:35 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:12:58 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
On 23 Oct 2004 12:32:23 -0700, (alvintchase)
wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if this time Bush won the popular vote,and Kerry
won the electoral vote?Apparently that's one of the many possible
twists in this year's election.
I'm not sure what would be nice about that. What I think would be
nice is if we had a candidate that so many people thought well of that
he/she would win by a large margin.
Somewhere between slim chance and fat chance of that happening.
What's really bizarre is that there are 33 different combinations that
could result in a 269/269 tie in electoral votes.
If that happens, the house then votes for President, and the senate votes
for the VP.
The house has the margin to elect Bush without question. But the senate is
nearly evenly divided, with only a single vote margin on the Democrat side.
However the senate rules are such that a senator cannot vote for himself,
so John Edwards would abstain, resulting a tie. Ties in the senate are
broken by the VP, who *can* vote for himself. So ***** Cheney could cast
the deciding vote to reelect himself as VP.
We need to invoke the Declaration of Independence and eliminate them
all. Start afresh.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
